Turkish said:
potato_hamster said:
Okay. So now it's confirmed that you either don't know what the word "assumption" means, or that you have poor reading comprehension skills, or both. I stated that there are potential licensing issues, as a possible reason why it it might not feasbile. I just bolded a whole bunch of words which demonstrate I didn't assume anything. I'll just keep bolding those words going forward so you don't get confused, okay?
Your "facts" as you so put them don't actually lead to the conclusion you come to. I have demonstrated that there are all kinds of potential non-technical issues that can prevent Sony from doing something even if they have the knowledge base to actually create it. Why do you think so many of these "industry giants" as you so put it spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year buying other company's patents? Do you think it's for funsies? Do you think its because they want to make their profit margins worse? No. It's to give themselves the legal ability to create the products they want to create. I even gave an example of mini-games in loading screens, and you still don't get these are very real issues that tech companies need to consider when developing any new product.
So they're not giving away third party game licensing for free?! I am just shocked. So you think because these games cost between $5 and $10 on PSN (regular price) that means that licening fees must be pretty high, right? What if I told you that these companies actually pay sony a percentage of the retail price of each to put the games on the PSN and Sony doesn't actually pay to licence those games from those companies to put them up on the store. So you're actually using the wrong information to try and "figure it out", aren't you? Also if you were actually correct (you're not), many of the most popular third party games have gone on sale on PSN for $1 or have been given away for free with PSN, then the licensing fees would have to be well less than $1, wouldn't it?
It's amazing how you think that having more games available to you means that choosing 30 of them becomes more difficult instead of much easier. Somehow Nintendo can choose 30 of the 600 games published on the SNES, but 30 out of 2000? Let's act like that's just absolutely ridiculous. You're intentionally being obtuse. You want to act like it would be expensive to license a game like Final Fantasy IX, yet here is the NES Classic with Final Fantasy 1, and the SNES Classic with Final Fantasy III. Or act like third parties are going to drive up the licensing cost of PS1 titles based on the success of Crash and the NES classic, but didn't drive up the licensing cost for the Super NES? How does that make any sense. So is it actually reasonable to assume the licensing for a PS1 classic would be substantially more expensive than the licensing for an NES? Absolutely not. It is a possibility, however. Besides, it's entirely plausible that of the 30 games Sony would have on such a system that less than half of them would be third party if they so choose, just like the NES classic. I even included a list of titles they could include, most of which were purely first party.
It's just so sweet that you think Sony's going to come out and position a create a product that essentially says "Instead of spending $250 on a new PS4, or $130 on a new PS3, here's a new PS1 only device at $150 that doesn't play PS3 games or PS2 games, but it's region free and has a nicer upscaler even though you probably don't care about those things".
You're right. That'll sell like fucking hot cakes. Sony should get on that pronto!
P.S. Super adorable that you think I'm the one oversimplifying and glossing over things. Sounds like you're just projecting to me.
|
I'll repeat again because you didn't get it: All your long winded wall of text posts at me are assumptions. Thats why we're here man, you doubled down hard trying to tell me Sony can't do the device I asked for, even though you know nothing. And it's precisely you know nothing that you replied with yuuuge texts at me that basically boiled down to "why wud Sony make such a device" or "Framemeister has special patents that Sony might not have", instead of keeping it short and concise. I alone provided the facts here, and that is that Sony is an industry giant with established upscalers for their TVs and Bluray players, and they can easily come up with a cheaper solution for retro gaming than a small company if they wanted it. Thats it, the rest is just background noise. No need to "bu bbuu buuutts" and "what ifs".
A preloaded PS1 is never gonna work out the same way a Nes or Snes Classic did. For 1. PS1 is the 3rd party console, too many licensing needed, too costly. 2. Too many games involved. Look even at your own list, you say "series" instead of games. There's too much games to choose from.
So it's time you start realizing you're wrong.
|
So now you think literally copy and pasting the same thing over again makes what you're saying more credible or something?
Look man, I can't help how that you continue to misinterpret what I'm typing. You're arguing against points I didn't actually make and claiming thing I didn't actually say, all the while making baseless assertions as if they're credible.
You're whole argument essentially boils down to "Sony is a yuge industry giant. They should be able to make anything I want them to make for a price I think it should cost based on that alone." Unfortunately for you, that thought process is completely detached from the reality that we live in.
You're never going to see the console you're dreaming of for the price you're dreaming of, with the features you're dreaming of. That's as factual as Sony's status as an industry giant.
